Twentyman v The Queen

The appellant, Twentyman, appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory against a jury verdict of guilty on a charge of gross indecency with a child under 16, contrary to s 127(1)(b) of the *Criminal Code 1983* (NT). The central dispute on appeal concerned the interpretation of the offence, specifically whether direct or indirect physical contact between the appellant and the complainant was a necessary element of the crime.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the trial judge had erred in law by failing to direct the jury that physical contact was an essential element of the offence under s 127(1)(b) of the *Criminal Code*. The appellant also raised grounds concerning the admission of tendency evidence from a Crown witness, RC, and the adequacy of the directions given to the jury regarding that evidence.

The Court held that direct or indirect physical contact is indeed an essential element of the offence of gross indecency with a child under 16 as defined by s 127(1)(b) of the *Criminal Code*. Applying this principle, the Court found that the evidence presented at trial did not establish this essential element in relation to count 3 of the indictment. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the verdict of guilty on count 3 was set aside, and a verdict of acquittal was entered for that count. The Court also considered and dismissed the grounds relating to the tendency evidence.